Americans Elect (AE) is an organization that intends to qualify for the 2012 presidential ballot in all 50 states, then field a presidential slate through an open nomination process on the internet.

I took note of the organization when they received favorable coverage after “de-cloaking” a few weeks ago. Realistically, we can expect “Americans Elect” to have as much impact on the 2012 election as their predecessor organization “Unity08″ had on the 2008 election. Which is to say – none. They can probably be safely ignored until such time as they show some real traction.

Still, this is an organization that proposes to dramatically change the way we select our President and they appear to have the financial support and the legal wherewithal to succeed with their ballot initiative. As such, it is prudent to take a deep dive into Americans Elect representations and bylaws, ask questions, and look for unintended consequences. Some bloggers are already working this beat.

Jim Cook of Irregular Times is skeptical and has been frustrated in his attempts to get his questions answered. Sol Kleinsmith of Rise of The Center (and occasional contributor here) is more favorably inclined, has been promised an interview, and is soliciting his readers for questions to ask the organization. It should be an interesting interview.

An interesting artifact of the Americans Elect proposed process for nominating and electing our president surfaced in one of the RoTC threads. Here is the scenario – Let’s say American’s Elect has successfully obtained ballot status and fielded a credible presidential candidate in 2012. They lose the election but win a plurality in one or more states and consequently neither the Republican or Democratic candidate have a majority of electoral votes. This is a plausible scenario (unlike actually winning the presidency for an AE candidate – which has a zero probability). While there is no history of a third party candidate winning the presidency, they have on occasion won the electoral votes for one or more states. One could easily envision an AE candidate with a strong geographic appeal winning a plurality in a state and securing their electoral votes as a favorite son. In that circumstance AE would make the decision between the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates for the entire country.

Americans Elect anticipated this scenario in their bylaws:

9.4.2. Coalition Agreement. The Americans Elect ticket receives fewer popular votes nationally than the ticket of at least one of the major political parties and the Americans Elect Delegates have convened in convention after the popular vote but before the Electoral College vote and endorsed a candidate of either major political party on such terms and conditions as may be reflected in the vote of endorsement, in which case the person serving as Elector shall vote solely in the affirmative for the endorsed candidate and for no other candidate.

This says Americans Elect intends to reconvene an on-line convention and through a vote of their delegates (theoretically any registered voter who opts-in – including me) decide whether the Republican or Democratic candidate will be our president. Specific details of how this AE re-convention would take place are sparse, but lets just take AE’s representations at face value and look at this through the prism of a hypothetical scenario:

It is November 7, 2012. A plurality of the people of New York state have voted to put their confidence in AE candidate Michael Bloomberg. In a close election, neither Democratic candidate Barack Obama or Republican candidate Mitt Romney have secured a majority of electoral votes. New York’s 31 electoral votes will now determine who will be president.

Not all of the registered voters of New York are AE delegates. They voted in a general election for a candidate – Michael Bloomberg. Yet by AE bylaws, Michael Bloomberg is now sidelined and will not decide how to cast the New York electoral votes on behalf of the people of New York. Instead, it is the Americans Elect delegates who will decide whether Obama or Romney receive New York’s 31 electoral votes and the presidency. As a practical matter, the people of the state of New York will be completely disenfranchised in the 2012 electoral college vote. How do you think they will feel about Texans, Floridians and Californians deciding whether their 31 electoral votes will be cast to make either Obama or Romney president? If clearly understood, would any New York voter to take that risk?

These are rhetorical questions. The answer is obvious.

In their haste to put together bylaws for their ballot initiative, AE may not have thought through the political ramifications of this provision. Assuming they get on all 50 state ballots and come up with a credible candidate, they can easily be undone by this provision alone. It is just too easy to run against. If an AE candidate shows any strength in any state, the consequences of an AE win in that state will be shouted from the rooftops by competing campaigns, bloggers, pundits, partisan of both parties, and the mainstream media. The message is simple and easy to communicate: The state will be disenfranchised in the Electoral College if the AE candidate wins that state.

From a tactical political campaign perspective, this is the equivalent of leading with your chin in a boxing match. I suspect that AE has a glass jaw and it would not take much of an uppercut to put them on the canvas. I have to believe that once Americans Elect realizes this problem, they will change these bylaws if they can.

If nothing else, this is a cautionary tale on the importance of transparency and the need for a deep dive when vetting those advocating new ways to elect our president. If the top gun political public relations professionals that run AE missed something like this, you’ve got to wonder what else they missed.

The Devil is in details and the details need to be out in the open where we can look for the bugger.

^{X-posted from “Divided We Stand United We Fall.”}

I refuse to call it the Ground Zero mosque because, well, it’s not at Ground Zero. It’s close, but it’s not at the site…which I think most people who opposed it think it is.

But here’s the thing…looks like it’s moving to another part of the city.

From Haaretz:

After weeks of heated debate over plans for an Islamic community center near Ground Zero – the site of the 9/11 attacks on New York – it seems Muslim leaders will soon back down, agreeing to move to a new site.

The decision follows a high-profile campaign against the project that included advertisements on New York buses showing images of the burning Twin Towers, an iconic landmark razed when al-Qaida terrorists flew packed passenger planes into them in 2001. The New York Republican party is also said to be planning a hostile television campaign.

Every hack politician who has actively pushed this should be ashamed of themselves. This is a completely worthless debate, driven, might I add, by the same folks who cry every single day about their constitutional rights being violated.

And lest they forget another important point about why a mosque would be appropriate near Ground Zero…a reminder from the Village Voice…

Muslims were victims of 9/11, too. Sorry, but it’s true. And one was an NYPD cadet.

Heads up Republicans…politicizing this might drive some of the base to the polls this year, but it’ll drive nobody else. And as you continue to ostracize groups that are expanding, instead of having an open tent, you’re marginalizing your party in the long run. Because for every voter you keep with nonsense issue like this (and revising the 14th amendment), you lose 2 new voters in the future. Don’t say you weren’t warned.

UPDATED:
Looks like the report was false. The mosque is going forward.

The official Twitter account of Park51, the developer constructing the center, has now stepped in to deny the story. “Reports by Haaretz are completely false,” tweeted @Park51. “We are committed to plans of building Park 51 to serve the community of Lower Manhattan.

Score one for American media. And cross Haaretz off your list of sources for news on this story.

Good.

UPDATED UPDATE:
However, David Patterson is trying to get the mosque to move…

New York Gov. David Paterson (D) will meet with the imam and developer of the proposed mosque near Ground Zero “later this week” to discuss the possibility of removing the mosque to an “alternate location”, according to Rep. Peter King.

King, an outspoken opponent of placing the mosque and Islamic cultural center so close to where terrorists attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, received a call from Paterson this morning.

“We are working with the developers on a staff level but there have not been any formal discussions between the Governor and Imam or developer,” said Morgan Hook, a spokesman for Paterson. “However, we expect to have a meeting scheduled in the near future.”

Something tells me this will keep on going and going and going…

And he says that he acted alone.

We shall see…

From Reuter:

“He’s admitted to buying the truck, putting the devices together, putting them in the truck, leaving the truck there and leaving the scene,” the law enforcement source told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“He’s claimed to have acted alone. He did admit to all the charges, so to speak,” the source said, adding that investigators were still looking into his activities during a recent trip to Pakistan.

If links were found between the failed Times Square bombing and Pakistan’s Taliban, which claimed responsibility for it, Pakistan could come under renewed U.S. pressure to open risky new fronts against Islamic militants.

Meanwhile, some conservatives are balking at reading an American citizen his Miranda rights?

– “I think obviously that [mirandizing Shahzad] would be a serious mistake until we’ve — at least until we find out as much information as we have, and there are ways — legal ways — of delaying that.” — Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)

– “I hope that [Attorney General Eric] Holder did discuss this with the intelligence community. If they believe they got enough from him, how much more should they get? Did they Mirandize him? I know he’s an American citizen but still.” — Rep. Peter King (R-NY)

John McCain? Mr. Habeas Corpus himself? Seriously?

Even Joe Lieberman is getting in on the “no miranda” act…

I think it’s time for us to look at whether we want to amend that law to apply it to American citizens who choose to become affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations, whether they should not also be deprived automatically of their citizenship, and therefore be deprived of rights that come with that citizenship when they are apprehended and charged with a terrorist act.

So how exactly would we be able to determine that an American citizen’s rights be revoked before we know whether or not they did what they’re accused of?

Oh those pesky rights!

Oddly enough, Glenn Beck and I see eye to eye on this one…

Beck added, “He’s a citizen of the United States, so I say we uphold the laws and the Constitution on citizens.” When Fox and Friends host Brian Kilmeade interjected, “But he’s a threat to the country. That’s different,” Beck responded, “So are a lot of citizens of the country. … We don’t shred the Constitution when it’s popular.”

“So are a lot of citizens of this country.”

I never thought I’d say this, but thank you Glenn Beck!

More as it develops…

By now you know that he was nabbed last night at JFK International Airport, but do you know how it happened?

From Politico:

The number from a disposable cellphone led FBI agents to the suspect arrested Monday night for allegedly driving a car bomb into Times Square on Saturday evening, according to a senior official.

“They were able to basically get one phone number and by running it through a number of databases, figure out who they thought the guy was,” the official said.

A huge law-enforcement force tracked the suspect through the afternoon and evening. He was arrested at 11:30 p.m. at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City.

The vehicle identification number had been removed from the bomb-laden 1993 Nissan Pathfinder left in Times Square. But investigators were able to lift it from a second location on the vehicle, and used that to track down a Connecticut man who said he had sold the Pathfinder for cash about three weeks ago.

The man had offered the vehicle on Craigslist, and FBI agents were able to recover the number from a disposable cellphone that had been used by the buyer.

The suspect didn’t still have the phone. But using a lot of technology and access to database, agents located the suspect.

Here’s my question…that last part…he didn’t have the cell phone, but they were able to use “a lot of technology and access to database”…what does that mean? Was he part of a database? Did they already know who he was? Was he on some list?

Also, here’s one nugget I think many of us haven’t seen yet…he almost got away!

After media reports late Monday that authorities were looking for a Pakistani-American man, Shahzad fled to Kennedy airport, boarding a flight for Dubai before law enforcement called the plane back to the terminal and the arrest was made.

Regardless, glad to see that the government caught the guy that they think did it…but we should all be cautious given our record in the past.

Here’s more on Shahzad, how he became a citizen and what that means:

Despite becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen on April 17, 2009, Shahzad spent much of the past year outside of the country, mostly in Pakistan where his wife, Huma Mian, is currently living. Details of his activities abroad remain unclear, but a picture of his life in American began to emerge Tuesday.

Shahzad, along with his wife and children, a boy and a girl, lived for about three years in a two-story Colonial-style three-bedroom home in Shelton, Conn., former neighbors said.

Neighbors offered diverging descriptions of Shahzad but agreed that he kept to himself. One, Brenda Thurman, said Shahzad had told her husband he worked on Wall Street, while another neighbor, Audrey Sokol, said she thought he worked in nearby Norwalk.

“He was a little bit strange,” she said. “He didn’t like to come out during the day.”

Sokol, a teacher who lives next door to Shahzad’s old house, said that he would wave and say hello and that he seemed normal to her.

Shahzad was currently living with a roommate in a mixed-race, working-class neighborhood of multi-family homes in Bridgeport, Conn. Authorities removed filled plastic bags from that house overnight and a bomb squad came and went without entering as local police and FBI agents gathered in the cordoned-off street.

He became a citizen in Hartford, Conn., and passed all the criminal and national security background checks required for citizenship, officials said.

The officials familiar with the inquiry say investigators plan to go through his citizenship application line by line to see if he lied about anything.

If Shahzad did try to blow up that SUV in Times Square, he’ll represent what many Americans fear: a foreign born naturalized citizen turned against us within our own shores. Basically, somebody who would be nearly impossible to stop from carrying out something truly horrific since he’s “one of us.”

Still, I would argue that this seems no different than a lone nut getting angry and flying his plane into a building…except this attempt wasn’t successful. The media spent maybe a day or two on that story. How long will they spend digging into Shahzad’s past, motives, etc.?

More as it develops…

Looks like their may be a Pakistani connection after all, but it still doesn’t appear that those who initially claimed responsibility are tied to this.

From ABC News:

The Washington Post, quoting Obama Administration sources, said the attempted bombing “increasingly appears to have been coordinated by several people in a plot with international links.”

Other law enforcement officials said the investigation was closing in on the driver of the vehicle and an unknown number of others connected to him.

“This is moving very fast because they left behind a treasure trove of evidence in the unexploded car,” one US official told ABC News.

And here’s more on the former owner of the vehicle and who he sold his SUV to…

Officials told ABC News Senior Justice correspondent Pierre Thomas that the Connecticut owner of the vehicle told them he had sold the Nissan SUV last month in an unrecorded sale to an “Arabic or Latino looking man” in his 20′s or 30′s, for a few hundred dollars in cash.

The license plate on the car was apparently stolen from an auto repair shop outside Bridgeport, Connecticut, according to law enforcement officials.

The authorities told ABC News that the previous owner provided a description of the man who bought the car, and told investigators the vehicle was sold for several hundred dollars in cash, with no written records identifying the purchaser.

By the way, the administration has officially deemed this a terrorist act. So that’s why the title was written that way.

More as it develops…

From the looks of the video, this guy could have been caught at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Still, investigators can’t ignore any leads right now.

More as it develops…

A group associated with the Taliban in Pakistan is claiming responsibility, but that’s already pretty much been debunked since a) the bomb sucked and b) the same group claimed responsibility for other situations that they weren’t involved with.

And then there’s the South Park/Viacom story, which seems very thin at this point.

All we do know at this point is the SUV contained a lot of flammable material…but not necessarily a viable or sophisticated bomb.

Here’s a graphic that explains what was in the car.

So, would it have been enough to do any serious damage? Officials claim the material in the truck could have cut it in half had it been ignited, and they’re still not sure what the fertilizer-looking substance is.

In short, even though this could have done some damage…it looks like whoever put this together was an amateur at best…

Ms Napolitano said that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Homeland Security and the City of New York were examining security video from the area around the vehicle, a Nissan SUV, which was towed early on Sunday to a forensic lab in Queens after a robotic arm was used to break the windows and remove the most dangerous materials.

There was no information to suggest that there are any other terrorism targets linked to the incident and the evidence so far suggested that this was a “one-off attempt”, Ms Napolitano told Fox News.

“There are a lot of cameras in that area,” she said, adding that fingerprints had been recovered from the vehicle.

My gut tells me that somebody will be picked up pretty soon. Here’s more on a possible suspect…

Kelly, during a news conference at One Police Plaza in downtown Manhattan, said that they have identified the registered owner of the Nissan Pathfinder found with deadly explosives. The license plate on the vehicle was linked to the registration of another vehicle, which was found in an auto repair shop in Connecticut, he said.

The license plates were not stolen, but Kelly would not clarify how the license plates of the vehicle in Connecticut were placed on the Pathfinder.

Police have reviewed hours of surveillance footage and found a white male in his 40s who looked ‘furtively’ toward the car with the bombs, Kelly said. Police said they were unsure if the unidentified man was involved in the scare.

The surveillance footage showed that the man changed from a dark-colored shirt on Shubert Alley, about half a block from where the car was parked on West 45th Street and 7th Avenue. As he walked away from the scene, the man then, looked back toward the vehicle, roughly at the time that the bombs were scheduled to explode, authorities said.

A white male in his 40s? Hmmmm…

More as it develops…

INDEPENDENT VOTERS

If you want to call it “fickle” to leave the two-party system behind in favor creating a new political culture, call me fickle!

• 2010: Fight for fickle kids (By: Eamon Javers, Politico) Stanford University political science professor Morris Fiorina is convinced that both political parties haven’t yet grasped the scale of the change that’s happening in society. Republicans, he said, made the mistake of assuming that the divisions they exploited in the 2000-2004 elections were much deeper and more durable than they actually were — and were shocked by vote swings in 2006 and 2008 that would have seemed inconceivable in 2004. Not to mention, he said, “the emergence of Obama out of nowhere.”

PENNSYLVANIA

Independent-turned-Democrat Joe Sestak plans to challenge veteran Republican-turned Democrat Sen. Arlen Specter in the 2010 Pennsylvania Democratic primary.

• Senate candidates from opposite sides use same strategy against Specter (By Reid Wilson, The Hill) Whether it is the outlier result of a single poll or the harbinger of inroads to come, Toomey actually leads Specter by a 46-42 percent margin among independent voters in a Quinnipiac University survey. The poll was conducted July 14-19.
• Sestak ready to announce he’ll take on Specter (By Thomas Fitzgerald, Philadelphia Inquirer)
• Sestak Fires Back: Dem. Specter Makes Republican Swift Boat Attacks On Dem. Military Veterans (By Brian Beutler, TPM, July 9, 2009)

NEW JERSEY

Gov race: Dem Corzine vs. Repub Christie vs. independent Daggett

• NJ Gov: Internal (D) Poll Shows Corzine Down 7 (RealClearPolitics)
• Christie maintains lead over Corzine in poll (By Cynthia Burton, Philadelphia Inquirer) independent candidate Chris Daggett took 4 percent

NEW YORK

Special elections in NY are nonpartisan and therefore allow everyone to vote regardless of registration. They favor insurgents and independent candidates.

Goo-Goos To Paterson: Don’t Call 38th AD Special Election (Liz Benjamin, Daily News/Daily Politics)

For more independent news, see The Hankster, where the independents are…

What a difference a day makes…

ALBANY – Gov. Paterson, defying the liberal wing of his Democratic Party, has chosen little-known, NRA-backed, upstate Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand to succeed Hillary Rodham Clinton as New York’s junior senator, it was learned last night.

The surprising – and, for many Democrats shocking – decision to pick the conservative Gillibrand, 42, from Hudson in Columbia County, was disclosed by the governor in calls to party officials and some members of the state’s congressional delegation, many of whom said they were unhappy with the selection, sources said.

Gillibrand, a mother of two occasionally resented by colleagues for being an aggressive self-promoter, was strongly backed for the post by Charles Schumer, the state’s senior senator, who said a woman and an upstater was needed on next year’s ticket.

This pick seems to make more sense than Kennedy because a conservative Dem will be more in line with Hillary’s centrist politics. Also, the fact that it’s ruffled some feathers in Manhattan isn’t the worst thing in the world.

More as it develops…

It appears that Caroline Kennedy’s withdrawal from consideration for the open New York Senate seat had nothing to do with her uncle’s illness:

ALBANY — Problems involving taxes and a household employee surfaced during the vetting of Caroline Kennedy and derailed her candidacy for the Senate, a person close to Gov. David A. Paterson said on Thursday, in an account at odds with Ms. Kennedy’s own description of her reasons for withdrawing.

The account emerged 14 hours after Ms. Kennedy announced that she was taking her name out of contention for the Senate seat vacated by Hillary Rodham Clinton, and as Mr. Paterson, according to two well-placed Democrats told of his thinking, was leaning toward selecting Representative Kirsten E. Gillibrand, an upstate lawmaker in her second term in Congress.

Hard feelings toward Ms. Kennedy were clearly building among the governor’s staff on Thursday, after a dramatic evening in which she was reported to be dropping out, then wavering, then ultimately, shortly after midnight on Thursday, issuing a statement ending her candidacy.

The person close to the governor said Mr. Paterson “never had any intention of picking Kennedy” because he had come to consider her unready for the job. The person did not describe the exact nature or seriousness of the tax and household employee issues.

So, it would appear that Princess Caroline’s withdrawal had nothing to do with Uncle Ted’s illness, and everything to do with the fact that she knew she wasn’t getting the job.

As for the “tax and household employee issues,” my guess is we’re talking about hiring an illegal alien nanny and/or not paying the required withholding taxes for said nanny.

Because, you know, only the little people pay taxes.

Cross-posted at Below The Beltway

It’s been reported that Dame Caroline Kennedy has called New York Governor David Paterson and withdrawn from consideration for appointment to fill the Senate seat vacated today by Hillary Clinton. Supposedly, Kennedy doesn’t want the appointment any more, due to the poor health of her uncle, Senator Edward M. Kennedy. But Ted Kennedy has been very sick since the outset of the Lady of Camelot’s pursuit of the high office. More likely, Dame Caroline learned that the Governor intends to appoint someone else and was given time to gracefully withdraw and avoid further embarrassment.

 

Only two days ago, there were reports that Kennedy had the Senate seat sewed up.

 

In her brief mini-campaign, Dame Caroline failed abysmally to garner public support or to convince anyone other than close friends that she had any particular qualifications for the job, as I noted in a series of posts here, here, here and here.

 

Paterson has a long list of highly qualified Democrats from which to make his choice, including Long Island Rep. Steve Israel, Nassau County Executive Tom Sozzi, upstate Rep. Kirsten, Gillibrand, and Manhattan Rep. Carolyn Maloney.  I’m still betting that it will be Attorney General Andrew Cuomo for the reasons I outlined here. We’ll know in a couple of days.

(Visit me at The Purple Center)

Prince Andrew Cuomo in a contemplative moment

“A son can bear with equanimity the loss of his father, but the loss of his inheritance may drive him to despair.”   -Niccolo Machiavelli

Within a few days, New York Governor David Paterson will appoint a successor to Hillary Clinton in the United States Senate. I’m going out on a limb to forecast that he will name state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, not the person on whom all eyes have been trained for more than a month, Dame Caroline Kennedy (that’s a prediction, not necessarily a preference).

Like Dame Caroline, Prince Andrew regards the holding of high office as a matter of ordained privilege. Specifically, he almost certainly wants — and expects — to sit in the Governor’s chair once held by his father. He ran for Governor once and lost; then settled for Attorney General but only as a stepping stone; and is virtually certain to run for Governor again unless he gets a better offer.

And therein lies the problem for David Paterson. Paterson is an accidental Governor who will face a host of problems of the sort that make governors unpopular in the year or so leading up to the 2010 election when he’ll have to win a full term by himself. Ahead of him are deep cuts in state programs, tax increases, and constant battles with the state legislature, New York City and other local governments, and every constituency whose support he’ll desperately need.

The last thing David Paterson wants to face on top of all this is a Democratic primary waged by a smart, ambitious, well-known, well-financed and popular elected official who will have the luxury of being on the sidelines in all those fights over money. He’ll have a big enough challenge beating his Republican opponent, especially if the GOP manages to field a formidable candidate like Rudy Giuliani.

But a primary is just what he’ll get, if Andrew Cuomo is still Attorney General in 2010. By then, Prince Andrew will be, at 53, no longer a young upstart. He’ll have served in a President’s cabinet and in statewide office, and he’ll see himself pushing 60 or 65 when the next chance to move into the Governor’s office comes along. He’ll want his inheritance, so he’ll run.

On the other hand, Paterson could tap his shoulder and make him a Senator! That gets him out of Paterson’s way and, not incidentally, gives the New York Democratic ticket some added appeal to voters in 2010.

In a race against Rudy, running with Cuomo would give Paterson a strong boost. In recent weeks, the compelling logic of this appointment for Paterson was undermined by the unexpected push for Dame Caroline. Pressed by various Kennedy family members, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and others, none of whom hold David Paterson’s interests uppermost, the Kennedy boomlet picked up a lot of media-driven momentum for a while, then gradually deflated as the Lady of Camelot showed herself to be such a novice at politics and public affairs that she might lose the Senate seat in 2010, much less help Paterson and the Democratic ticket.

Voters have been paying attention as Kennedy embarrassed herself. Two new polls show New Yorkers prefer Cuomo to Kennedy for the Senate, with Kennedy having lost support since December.

In a new Quinnipiac poll released Wednesday, voters preferred Cuomo over Kennedy by 31% to 24%. This represented a sharp decline for Kennedy from a December 23rd poll — taken before she traveled the state and tried answering some reporters’ questions — when she edged Cuomo 33-29. Given that Kennedy almost totally monopolized media attention for a month, an even more significant result from this poll may be that 62% of voters who had choice picked someone other than Dame Caroline. Even more damaging is Quinnipiac’s finding that voters say, 48% to 37%, that Kennedy is not qualified to be a U.S. Senator.

A new Marist poll out Thursday paints a worse picture for Dame Caroline, with Cuomo beating her by an even larger margin, 40% to 25% among all New York voters and 39 to 31% among Democrats. That’s also a big decline for Dame Caroline from Marist’s survey a month ago, when the two were deadlocked 25-25. Marist also finds that many more New Yorkers believe Cuomo will do a good or excellent job as Senator. Kennedy has also lagged Cuomo in other recent polls.

Cuomo has played his cards carefully, avoiding any public acknowledgement of the fact that he was even seeking the Senate seat out of deference to Paterson. In contrast, Kennedy’s high-profile mini-campaign, in addition to revealing her deficiencies, was reported to have angered Paterson who understandably resented the effort to steamroll him on what may be the single most important political decision he makes before his 2010 candidacy.

Of course, the appointment is made by one person, Governor Paterson, who may not be moved by surveys of notoriously fickle voter opinion. But in light of the other, substantial reasons why a Cuomo pick would be better for Paterson, if I had any money (I am still waiting for my bailout!), I’d bet it on Prince Andrew.

(Visit me at The Purple Center)

The Barack Obama administration is pulling a lot of people from the Senate. That has already caused some big headaches. Now it looks like the protracted and highly secretive process to fill Hillary Clinton’s seat in New York may be violating state laws:

Governor David Paterson has disclosed next to nothing about how he’s selecting a new senator. And that’s the problem.

Keeping the questions posed to Senate hopefuls secret appears to violate the state’s post-Watergate freedom of information laws, according to Robert Freeman, executive director of the state Committee on Open Government, the state agency that regulates enforcement of the good-government laws.

“How could it not be public? It’s a blank form,” said Freeman, a lawyer who since 1976 has been the top state employee advising government and the public on interpretation of the public officers’ law.

The names of those under consideration also should be disclosed, Freeman said.

Keeping the names secret is bad enough as it prevents the kind of public vetting I believe is necessary to ensure an acceptable choice. Keeping the questionnaire secret borders on paranoid. What is Paterson’s fear? That releasing the questions may open him up to criticism?

With the mess in Illinois, the unnecessary secrecy in New York and the chicanery in Delaware, isn’t it time we start asking if our states need to revise the way we replace senators? I know statewide elections are costly, but the current system employed by the states seems tailor-made to promote corruption. Immediate direct election of vacated Senate seats seems the only way to prevent the shenanigans we’ve seen over the last two months.

Four Senate seats this month have to be filled by governors because the seat-holders are vacating for prominent jobs in the new administration.

In Delaware, Joseph Biden is ascending to the Vice Presidency, and in an example of horse-trading so transparent that it apparently doesn’t even warrant comment, twisted the arm of the governor to appoint his senior aide to the seat with the more-or-less express intent of keeping it warm for his son in 2010. The appointee, Ted Kaufman, has never received a single vote and has never held elected or even public office and, as far as I’m aware, doesn’t even have any noteworthy experience in the private sector. He was appointed over other potential candidates like the sitting Lieutenant Governor, the sitting Secretary of State, a sitting state supreme court justice, and, presumably, every other previous or sitting elected official in the state of Delaware.

In New York, of course, it seemed very likely, at least until she botched her entrance into the field, that Governor Patterson, at least in part on direction from the Obama campaign, would appoint Caroline Kennedy. Kennedy has done some good work in her life, but again has eschewed public accountability, and I think precisely nobody denies that the #1 qualification which puts her into such strong contention is her recent role as being one of the President elect’s top surrogates and fundraisers. Again, it’s not that Governor Patterson has no options, but rather no imagination. The other two names being widely floated for the seat are Andrew Cuomo and, yes, Bill Clinton. Which would be mind-blowing considering he would be holding the seat of the lady who was only put into the seat for being married to him (though at least she got elected and thus deserved it). In any case, who says the American aristocracy is dead? I’m still holding out hope that Patterson does the right thing and nominates somebody not on the basis of horsetrading and favor-rewarding, but rather looks to an actual prominent public servant in New York who deserves the ascension (unlike, say, in Delaware, where that was apparently not even a consideration). In any case, the decision right now is who needs to be pleased, the Obama camp, the Clinton camp, or Patterson’s 2010 reelection camp. The people of New York are so far running a distant fourth.

In Colorado, Senator Ken Salazar is vacating to be Obama’s Secretary of the Interior. Yesterday, Governor Bill Ritter announced that his appointment to fill the seat to term will be…Denver Public Schools Superintendent Michael Bennet.

And a collective “who?” echoes throughout the rocky mountains.

However, the liberal netroots know what’s going on. As David Sirota writes here, there is only one area in which Ritter excels: he is the most well connected candidate to the big money donors in Colorado and beyond:

Considering his lack of legislative record, lack of experience in any elected or statewide office, and considerable ties to the biggest of big money, it’s logical to be concerned about how a Senator Bennet will vote on issues. Off the top of my head, I’m wondering, for instance, whether someone with this kind of resume is going to be in favor of tougher financial industry regulations?*
[...]
Colorado has no dearth of very, very qualified people to be U.S. Senator. More specifically, we have a lot of people who have worked very hard passing good public policy and building the grassroots of the Democratic Party for years here. Looking at this bench, and then selecting a person with almost none of those qualities confirms that what gets rewarded in politics today is not legislative accomplishments nor even political ones – what counts is money, inside connections, Ivy League pedigree and a Beltway-padded resume.

And then you have Illinois.

There, the controversial but innocent-until-proven-guilty governor apparantly rethought his standards and decided to go after a candidate who was the least offensive and most obviously squeaky clean and qualified candidate for the office possible. The Illinois legislature punted on holding a special election, despite their protestations that they wanted a fair process (when what they really mean is one in which they get to have their thumbs on the scales), so rather than leave Illinois with only one Senate vote for the foreseeable future, the governor went with a known public servant, a man who has made a career out of seeking public approval, a man with some pretty germane qualifications considering the context (a former Attorney General (i.e. anti-corruption crusader) and former Comptroller (i.e. bank regulator)), a man who would be the sole African-American in the Senate, and a man who, despite the most intense public scrutiny spotlight in America right now, precisely nobody can level a real accusation against. In other words, the man, given the circumstances, most qualified for the job.

So, four Senate vacancies. In one, literally a staffer is appointed to keep the seat warm for the Senator’s son. In another, it’s an ongoing battle of which high-profile election surrogate to reward for their loyalty. In the third, the trumping consideration was apparently in favor of the guy most connected to big money, at the expense of qualifications or experience. And in the fourth, the guy nominated was an unimpeachable public servant undeniably qualified for the job.

Now, the question:

Guess which one doesn’t get seated?

Cross-posted at The Crossed Pond

John wrote about this a couple days ago and now NBC picks up the meme.

You know how I said Caroline was nearly a lock for this seat? Well, I think I’m going to have to eat those words. Public sentiment is starting to turn against her and if she doesn’t move quickly, the seat is gone.

(Hat tip: Politico.com)

Dame Caroline of Camelot finally sat down with several major media outlets over the past few days, presumably to counter growing criticism of her running away from questions and saying little or nothing about the issues that will come before the Senate she wants to join.

At her sit-down with The New York Times, she got testy about the questions she was asked.  Reactions in the rest of the media — print, broadcast and online — was, to be generous, less than enthusiastic.  New York Daily News columnist Michael Goodwin delivered this especially blunt assessment:

But a strange thing is happening on the way to the coronation. The wheels of the bandwagon are coming off. Fantasy is giving way to inescapable truth.

That truth is that Kennedy is not ready for the job and doesn’t deserve it. Somebody who loves her should tell her.

Her quest is becoming a cringe-inducing experience, as painful to watch as it must be to endure. Because she is the only survivor of that dreamy time nearly 50 years ago, she remains an iconic figure. But in the last few days, her mini-campaign has proved she has little to offer New Yorkers except her name.

The YouTube video above is actually the audio of portions of one of her interviews.  In a way, I wish it were different, but I’ve listened to hundreds of office seekers in my time and, IMHO, compared to many of them, Dame Caroline seems uninformed, uninterested, uninteresting, and at times incoherent.

Listen to it and judge for yourself.

(Visit me at The Purple Center)

Hi, this is Danielle Ivory from the American News Project. My colleague, Lagan Sebert, and I just published a new video on the bailout and a lack of serious oversight.

Today, Henry Paulson urged Congress to release the second half of the $700 billion of the bailout money. But no one seems know what banks have done with the first $350 billion. Despite the fact that Congress wrote more than one hundred pages about oversight in the bailout bill, they left a gaping hole.

All of the content on ANP is available for free! If you like the piece, please feel free to post it on your blog, or replay on the radio or tv.

http://americannewsproject.com/videos/186

On Wednesday, New York’s Governor David Patterson unveiled a proposed $121-billion budget for next year, which includes a barrage or 88 new or higher taxes and fees to help close a $15.4-billion gap. Among the new revenue raisers are an “I-Pod tax” on downloaded music, sales taxes on cable and satellite TV, new taxes on movie tickets, taxi rides, beer, wine, cigars and massages, and my favorite, an “obesity tax” on sugared soda. So lay off the Coke, unless it’s sugar free. The Governor says it’s bad for you.

An astonishing number of otherwise sensible people have jumped in to agree with Patterson that the approximately 18% tax on Coke, Pepsi and Dr. Pepper with sugar is just what the doctor ordered so that New Yorkers can shed the zillion pounds of fat we’re carrying around.

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof opined instantly to the effect that sugary drinks are the new cigarettes. Whereas “some scholars believe they have become a major source of obesity,” he wrote, a daily dose of root beer will kill you dead. One such concerned scholar he relies on is — I could not make this up — “Barry Popkin, a nutrition specialist at the University of North Carolina and author of the excellent new book, ‘The World Is Fat’.”

Here’s the thing about all this: like millions of other Americans, I’ve been trying to lose — or keep off — some ugly, unwanted fat for years. But the number of sugared sodas I drank in the past three decades you could count on your fingers. I don’t need no damn Coke to stay fat! Give me ice cream, pasta, potatoes, fried chicken, candy, pie, cake, cookies, tarts, Danishes, bagels with cream cheese, ribs dripping with sauce, quiche, Big Macs, turkey with dressing, eggs benedict, more gravy, extra helpings — and I can manage to stay quite fat enough, thank you.

Thanks to Mayor Bloomberg, I already have to read the number of calories contained in every Starbucks muffin I buy. Now, the handwriting is on the wall:

– First they taxed Coke, and I said nothing, because I didn’t drink Coke.

– Then, they rationed donuts, and I said nothing, because I don’t like donuts.

– Then, they banned Big macs, and I said nothing, because I can live without McDonalds.

– Then, finally??? I dunno where it all ends.

But I’m getting hungry.  I need to go get a snack.

(Visit me at The Purple Center)

As Caroline Kennedy made a pilgrimage to Harlem to lunch with Rev. Al Sharpton, her rivalry with Cuomo scion Andrew, who is currently serving as New York State Attorney General until he can find a higher office, heated up.

Kennedy actually answered a couple of reporters’ questions in a sidewalk press availability, after munching with Rev. Al at Sylvia’s, in contrast to her first foray as a candidate yesterday when she ran pell mell for her car to escape from inquisitive ink-stained wretches.

Governor David Patterson, who will appoint someone to fill Hillary Clinton’s seat in a month or so, disclosed that he has talked with Cuomo about the Senate spot, although he refused to say in so many words whether the former Governor’s son asked him for it.

Meanwhile, two statewide polls were released showing Kennedy and Cuomo running neck and neck in the opinion of the state’s voters, who unluckily have no say in the matter.  A Siena College survey had Cuomo edging the Camelot Princess 26% to 23%, while a new Marist poll has them tied at 25% a piece.  No one else scored above single digits although the combined total of those not choosing neither the heiress nor the heir amounted obviously to about half those surveyed.

The word circulating among some newsies is that Kennedy has the job, if she wants it.  Since she has said she does want it, though, it’s hard to see why Patterson is personally throwing Cuomo’s name out now, when he hadn’t before.  I still think it’s up in the air, although Patterson is getting a lot of public and private pressure to appoint Kennedy.

Why?  Because Kennedy in the Senate now is a plus for Patterson only in the sense that her presence on the ticket in 2010 might help Patterson win election to a full term against a tough opponent like Rudy Giuliani.  That’s nice, but leaving Andrew in the AG slot — and snubbing him in favor of his ex-cousin-in-law who has never held public office, run for anything, or even held much of any job — might well mean that Cuomo would challenge Patterson in a primary. Patterson is an accidental governor, beset by mountains of troubles. If you had to bet today who would win that primary, Cuomo would be the better bet.  Appoint him to the Senate and, presto, one of your biggest problems goes away.

Would Kennedy and her extended clan, political support infrastructure and fundraising machine be harnessed to help David vs. Andrew?  Maybe, but Patterson probably doesn’t believe in the tooth fairy either.

(Visit me at The Purple Center)